[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 114th Congress]
[114th Congress]
[House Document 113-181]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 413-433]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


 
                                 Rule IX


                         questions of privilege



Sec. 698. Definition of questions of privilege.

  1.  Questions 
of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House 
collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings; 
and second, those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of 
Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner, individually, in their 
representative capacity only.



[[Page 414]]

motions to adjourn only at a time or place, designated by the Speaker, 
in the legislative schedule within two legislative days after the day on 
which the proponent announces to the House an intention to offer the 
resolution and the form of the resolution. Oral announcement of the form 
of the resolution may be dispensed with by unanimous consent.


Sec. 699. Precedence of questions of 
privilege.

  2. (a)(1) A resolution  reported as a question of the privileges of the House, or 
offered from the floor by the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as 
a question of the privileges of the House, or offered as privileged 
under clause 1, section 7, article I of the Constitution, shall have 
precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn. A 
resolution offered from the floor by a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner other than the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as a 
question of the privileges of the House shall have precedence of all 
other questions except


  (2) The time allotted for debate on a resolution offered from the 
floor as a question of the privileges of the House shall be equally 
divided between (A) the proponent of the resolution, and (B) the 
Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, or a designee, as determined by 
the Speaker.


  (b) A question of personal privilege shall have precedence of all 
other questions except motions to adjourn.


  This rule was adopted in 1880 (III, 2521) to codify long-established 
practice that the House had hitherto been unwilling to define (II, 
1603). It was amended in the 103d Congress to authorize the Speaker to 
designate a time within a period of two legislative days for the 
consideration of a resolution to be offered from the floor by a Member 
other than the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader after that Member 
has announced to the House an intention to do so and the content of the 
resolution, and to divide the time for debate on the resolution (H. Res. 
5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). Clause 2 was amended in the 106th Congress to 
permit the announcement of the form of the resolution to be dispensed 
with by unanimous consent, and clerical and stylistic changes were 
effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A gender-based reference was eliminated in 
the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).


[[Page 415]]

pose of hindering the extension of constitutional or other privilege'' 
(VI, 48). Thus a resolution merely asserting the position of the House 
with regard to an external issue does not qualify (Oct. 6, 2011, p. _).



Sec. 700. Questions of privileges of the House.

  The  body of 
precedent relating to questions of the privileges of the House includes 
rulings that span the adoption of this rule. The rule was adopted ``to 
prevent the large consumption of time which resulted from Members 
getting the floor for all kinds of speeches under the pretext of raising 
a question of privilege'' (III, 2521). In a landmark decision on 
constitutional assertions of privilege, Speaker Gillett placed 
significant reliance on the history of rule IX by observing that it 
``was obviously adopted for the pur




Sec. 701. Questions relating to organization.

  The  privileges 
of the House include questions relating to its organization (I, 22-24, 
189, 212, 290), and the title of its Members to their seats (III, 2579-
2587), which may be raised as questions of the privileges of the House 
even though the subject has been previously referred to committee (I, 
742; III, 2584; VIII, 2307). Such resolutions include those: (1) to 
declare prima facie right to a seat, or to declare a vacancy, where the 
House has referred the questions of prima facie and final rights to a 
committee for investigation (H. Res. 1, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 381; H. Res. 
52, Feb. 7, 1985, p. 2220; H. Res. 97, Mar. 4, 1985, p. 4277; H. Res. 
121, Apr. 2, 1985, p. 7118; H. Res. 148, Apr. 30, 1985, p. 9801); (2) to 
raise various questions incidental to the right to a seat (I, 322, 328, 
673, 742; II, 1207; III, 2588; VII, 2316), such as a resolution to 
declare a vacancy in the House because a Member-elect is unable to take 
the oath of office and to serve as a Member or to expressly resign the 
office due to an incapacitating illness (H. Res. 80, Feb. 24, 1981, p. 
2916); (3) to declare neither of two claimants seated pending a 
committee report and decision of final right to the seat by the House 
(Jan. 3, 1961, pp. 23-25; Jan. 3, 1985, p. 381), including incidental 
provisions providing compensation for both claimants and office staffing 
by the Clerk (Jan. 3, 1985, p. 381) and to direct temporary seating of a 
certified Member-elect pending determination of final right 
notwithstanding prior House action declining to seat either claimant 
(Feb. 7, 1985, p. 2220; Mar. 4, 1985, p. 4277); (4) to propose directly 
to dispose of a contest over the title to a seat in the House (Nov. 8, 
1997, p. 25294; Nov. 9, 1997, p. 25721; Jan. 28, 1998, p. 175) or to 
dispose of such contest upon the expiration of a specified day (Oct. 23, 
1997, p. 23231; Oct. 29, 1997, p. 23695; Oct. 30, 1997, p. 23959; Nov. 
5, 1997, p. 24645).



  A resolution electing a House officer is presented as a question of 
the privileges of the House (July 31, 1997, p. 17021; Feb. 6, 2007, p. 
3156). A resolution declaring vacant the Office of the Speaker is 
presented as a matter of high constitutional privilege (VI, 35). For 
further discussion with respect to the organization of the House and the 
title of its Members to seats, see Sec. Sec. 18-30, 46-51, 56, and 58-
60, supra.


[[Page 416]]

p. 10701). Such a question of privilege includes a resolution asserting 
that a conference report accompanying a House bill originated revenue 
provisions in derogation of the sole constitutional prerogative of the 
House and resolving that such bill be recommitted to conference (July 
27, 2000, p. 16565). The constitutional prerogatives of the House also 
include its function with respect to: (1) impeachment and matters 
incidental thereto (see Sec. 604, supra); (2) bills ``pocket vetoed'' 
during an intersession adjournment (Nov. 21, 1989, p. 31156); (3) its 
power to punish for contempt, whether of its own Members (II, 1641-
1665), of witnesses who are summoned to give information (II, 1608, 
1612; III, 1666-1724), or of other persons (II, 1597-1640); (4) 
questions relating to legal challenges involving the prerogatives of the 
House (Jan. 29, 1981, p. 1304; Mar. 30, 1982, p. 5890), including a 
resolution responding to a court challenge to the prerogative of the 
House to establish a Chaplain (Mar. 30, 1982, p. 5890). A resolution 
laying on the table a message from the President containing certain 
averments inveighing disrespect toward Members of Congress was 
considered as a question of the privileges of the House asserting a 
breach of privilege in a formal communication to the House (VI, 330).


Sec. 702. Questions relating to constitutional 
prerogatives.

  The  privileges of the House, as distinguished from that of 
the individual Member, include questions relating to its constitutional 
prerogatives in respect to revenue legislation and appropriations (see, 
e.g., II, 1480-1501; VI, 315; Nov. 8, 1979, p. 31517; Oct. 1, 1985, p. 
25418; June 16, 1988, p. 14780; June 21, 1988, p. 15425; Aug. 12, 1994, 
p. 21655). For a more thorough record of revenue bills returned to the 
Senate, see Sec. 102, supra. Such a question of privilege may be raised 
at any time when the House is in possession of the papers (June 20, 
1968, Deschler, ch. 13, Sec. 14.2; Aug. 19, 1982, p. 22127), but not 
otherwise (Apr. 6, 1995,


  For a discussion of the relationship of the House and its Members to 
the courts, see Sec. Sec. 290-291b, supra. For examples of Senate 
messages requesting the return of Senate measures that intruded on the 
constitutional prerogative of the House to originate revenue measures, 
see Sec. 565, supra. For a discussion of the prerogatives of the House 
with respect to treaties affecting revenue, see Sec. 597, supra.


[[Page 417]]

(June 6, 2002, p. 9492 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); (3) a 
resolution alleging that Congress had been negligent in its oversight 
responsibilities with regard to military involvement in Iraq, and 
calling on leadership and committee chairs to conduct oversight of that 
matter, but refraining from alleging any impropriety (Nov. 3, 2005, pp. 
24757-59 (sustained by tabling of appeal)). On the other hand, an 
extraordinary question relating to the House vote required by the 
Constitution to pass a joint resolution extending the ratification 
period of a proposed constitutional amendment was raised as a question 
of privilege where the House had not otherwise made a separate 
determination on that procedural question and where consideration of the 
joint resolution had been made in order (Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 15, 1978, 
p. 26203).

  The ordinary rights and functions of the House under the Constitution 
are exercised in accordance with the rules without precedence as matters 
of privilege (III, 2567). Neither the enumeration of legislative powers 
in article I of the Constitution nor the prohibition in the seventh 
clause of section 9 of that article against any withdrawal from the 
Treasury except by enactment of an appropriation renders a measure 
purporting to exercise or limit the exercise of those powers a question 
of the privileges of the House, because rule IX is concerned not with 
the privileges of the Congress, as a legislative branch, but only with 
the privileges of the House, as a House (Feb. 7, 1995, p. 3905; Dec. 22, 
1995, p. 38501; Jan. 3, 1996, p. 40; Jan. 24, 1996, p. 1248; Feb. 1, 
1996, p. 2245; Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25420; Nov. 4, 1999, pp. 28528-33; June 
6, 2002, p. 9492 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Oct. 2, 2002, pp. 
18932 (sustained by tabling of appeal), 18934 (sustained by tabling of 
appeal), 18936 (sustained by tabling of appeal), 18938 (sustained by 
tabling of appeal); Oct. 3, 2002, pp. 19001 (sustained by tabling of 
appeal), 19002 (sustained by tabling of appeal)). For example, the 
following legislative propositions have been held not to involve a 
question of constitutional privileges of the House: (1) a resolution 
requiring a committee inquiry into the extent to which the right to vote 
was denied under the provisions of the 14th amendment (VI, 48); (2) a 
resolution alleging an unconstitutional abrogation of a treaty by the 
President, and calling on the President to seek the approval of Congress 
before such abrogation


[[Page 418]]

to establish an investigative subcommittee and appoint outside counsel 
to investigate certain allegations against a Member (Oct. 8, 2004, p. 
22734); (14) alleging, among other things, the improper and unilateral 
firing of nonpartisan staff of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct (now Ethics) and directing the Speaker to appoint a bipartisan 
task force to address the efficacy of that committee so as to restore 
public confidence in the ethics process (Mar. 15, 2005, pp. 4657, 4658; 
Apr. 14, 2005, pp. 6399, 6400) and directing the committee to appoint 
nonpartisan professional staff (June 9, 2005, pp. 12025, 12026); (15) 
alleging, among other things, the improper and unilateral firing of 
nonpartisan staff of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now 
Ethics) and illegal activities between a lobbyist and Members, and 
directing that committee to investigate misconduct of Members and staff 
with that lobbyist (Mar. 30, 2006, p. 4445; Apr. 5, 2006, pp. 4993, 
4994); (16) alleging improper conduct by a former Member with regard to 
the House Page program and insufficient response thereto by the House 
leadership, and directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
(now Ethics) to establish a subcommittee to investigate (Sept. 29, 2006, 
p. 21334); (17) alleging a violation of the Code of Official Conduct and 
issuing a reprimand (May 22, 2007, p. 13525); (18) directing the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to investigate a 
Member's conduct and make a recommendation regarding expulsion (June 5, 
2007, p. 14600); (19) directing the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct (now Ethics) to review irregularities in the conduct of a vote 
in the House (Aug. 3, 2007, p. 22746); (20) directing the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) and a previously-established 
select committee to investigate whether a vote was held open beyond a 
reasonable period of time for the purpose of circumventing the will of 
the House, and vacating such vote (Mar. 12, 2008, p. 3855); (21) 
directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to 
investigate violations of the Code of Official Conduct (Mar. 12, 2008, 
p. 3864); (22) alleging receipt of illegal campaign contributions and 
gifts and censuring a Member therefor (July 31, 2008, p. 17463); (23) 
alleging receipt of illegal campaign contributions and gifts and 
violations of federal tax law, directing the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct (now Ethics) to investigate, and removing a Member as 
chair of a standing committee pending such investigation (Sept. 18, 
2008, p. 19600); (24) alleging failure to properly report the receipt of 
gifts in accordance with financial disclosure and tax laws, and removing 
the Member as chair pending an on-going investigation by the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) (Feb. 10, 2009, p. 3508; 
Oct. 7, 2009, pp. 23770, 23771); (25) alleging a quid pro quo between 
legislative activity and campaign contributions to Members, and 
directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to 
investigate that relationship (Feb. 25, 2009, p. 5759; Mar. 5, 2009, p. 
6561; Mar. 10, 2009, p. 6765; Mar. 19, 2009, p. 8106; Mar. 25, 2009, p. 
8743; Mar. 30, 2009, p. 9097; Apr. 1, 2009, p. 9542; May 12, 2009, p. 
12213; July 22, 2009, p. 18588) and alleging an inadequate investigation

[[Page 419]]

into such allegations by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
(now Ethics), and directing the committee to report on the extent of 
said investigation (Mar. 18, 2010, p. 3846; Mar. 25, 2010, p. 5033; Apr. 
15, 2010, pp. 5659, 5660; Apr. 22, 2010, pp. 6083, 6084); (26) alleging 
improper involvement of Members with a certain lobbying organization, 
and directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now 
Ethics) to report any action it has taken with respect thereto (June 3, 
2009, p. 13841); (27) alleging improper conduct by a former Member with 
regard to various House staff and insufficient response thereto by House 
leadership, and directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
(now Ethics) to establish a subcommittee to investigate the 
circumstances surrounding the former Member's misconduct and the 
responses thereto and to issue a report thereon (Mar. 11, 2010, pp. 
3157, 3158; April 14, 2010, p. 5518). On the other hand, a resolution 
alleging inconsistency between statements of the Speaker and of an 
intelligence agency and commissioning an investigation of the accuracy 
of her statements, where such investigation would extend beyond the 
conduct of a Member and necessarily involve a review of the agency 
itself, was held not to constitute a question of the privileges of the 
House (May 21, 2009, p. 13175; June 16, 2009, p. 15272).


Sec. 703. Questions relating to official 
conduct.

  The  privileges of the House include certain questions relating to 
the conduct of Members, officers, and employees (see, e.g., I, 284, 285; 
III, 2628, 2645-2647). Under that standard, the following resolutions 
have been held to constitute questions of the privileges of the House: 
(1) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now 
Ethics) to investigate illegal solicitation of political contributions 
in the House Office Buildings by unnamed sitting Members (July 10, 1985, 
p. 18397); (2) establishing an ad hoc committee to investigate 
allegations of ``ghost'' employment in the House (Apr. 9, 1992, p. 
9029); (3) directing a committee to further investigate the conduct of a 
Member on which it has reported to the House (Aug. 5, 1987, p. 22458); 
(4) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now 
Ethics) to report to the House the status of an investigation pending 
before the committee (Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33846; Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35075); 
(5) appointing an outside counsel (Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23851; Sept. 24, 
1996, p. 24525); (6) committing other matters to an outside counsel 
already appointed by the committee (June 27, 1996, p. 15917); (7) 
directing the committee to release the report of an outside counsel 
(Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23852; Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24526); (8) making 
allegations concerning the propriety of responses by officers of the 
House to court subpoenas for papers of the House without notice to the 
House, and directions to a committee to investigate such allegations 
(Feb. 13, 1980, p. 2768); (9) making allegations of improper 
representation by counsel of the legal position of Members in a brief 
filed in the Court and directions for withdrawal of the brief (Mar. 22, 
1990, p. 4996); (10) making allegations of unauthorized actions by a 
committee employee to intervene in judicial proceedings (Feb. 5, 1992, 
p. 1601); (11) directing the Clerk to notify interested parties that the 
House regretted the use of official resources to present to the Supreme 
Court of Florida a legal brief arguing the unconstitutionality of 
congressional term limits, and that the House had no position on that 
question (Nov. 4, 1991, p. 29968); (12) alleging a chronology of 
litigation relating to the immunity of a Member from civil liability for 
bona fide official acts and expressing the views of the House thereon 
(May 12, 1988, p. 10574); (13) directing the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct (now Ethics)


  For a discussion of disciplinary resolutions meting out punishment for 
violations of standards of official conduct, which constitute questions 
of the privileges of the House, see Sec. Sec. 62-66, supra.


[[Page 420]]

p. 1589); (2) creating a select committee to investigate the same matter 
(Feb. 5, 1992, p. 1599); (3) requiring an explanation of a reported 
interference with authorized access to a committee investigation of that 
matter (Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9024); (4) redressing a perception of 
obstruction of justice by recusing the General Counsel to the Clerk from 
matters relating to the investigation of that matter (Apr. 9, 1992, p. 
9076); (5) directing the Speaker to explain the lapse of time before the 
House received notice that several Members and an officer of the House 
had received subpoenas to testify before a Federal grand jury 
investigating that matter (May 14, 1992, p. 11309); (6) directing the 
Committee on House Administration to transmit to the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) and to the Department of 
Justice all records obtained by its task force to investigate that 
matter (July 22, 1992, p. 18786); (7) directing the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to investigate violations of 
confidentiality by staff engaged in the investigation of that matter 
(July 22, 1992, p. 18795); (8) directing the Committee on House 
Administration to release transcripts of the proceedings of its task 
force to investigate that matter, where the investigation was ordered as 
a question of privilege and its results had been ordered reported to the 
House (July 22, 1992, p. 18796; July 23, 1992, p. 19125); (9) directing 
the Committee on House Administration to redress the erroneous naming of 
a Member in minority views accompanying a report on that matter (July 
23, 1992, p. 19121); (10) directing the public release of official 
papers of the House relating to an investigation by the Committee on 
House Administration's task force to investigate the operation and 
management of the Office of the Postmaster (July 22, 1993, p. 16634); 
(11) directing the public release of transcripts and other relevant 
documents relating to an investigation by the Committee on House 
Administration's task force to investigate the operation and management 
of the Office of the Postmaster unless two designees of the bipartisan 
leadership agree to the contrary (June 9, 1994, p. 12437); (12) 
directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to 
defer any investigation relating to the operation of the former Post 
Office until assured that its inquiry would not interfere with an 
ongoing criminal investigation, as well as a resolution directing the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to proceed with 
the investigation (Mar. 2, 1994, p. 3672).
  In the 102d and 103d Congresses, a large number of resolutions 
relating to the operation of the ``bank'' in the Office of the Sergeant-
at-Arms and the management of the Office of the Postmaster were 
presented as questions of the privileges of the House. The former 
category included resolutions: (1) terminating all bank and check-
cashing operations in the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and directing 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to review 
GAO audits of such operations (Oct. 3, 1991, p. 25435); (2) instructing 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to disclose 
the names and pertinent account information of Members and former 
Members found to have abused the privileges of the ``bank'' in the 
Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5519); (3) instructing 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to disclose 
further account information respecting Members and former Members having 
checks held by that entity (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5534); (4) mandating full 
and accurate disclosure of pertinent information concerning the 
operation of that entity (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5551); (5) responding to a 
subpoena for records of that entity (Apr. 29, 1992, p. 9453); (6) 
responding to a contemporaneous request for such records from a Special 
Counsel (Apr. 29, 1992, p. 9763); (7) authorizing an officer of the 
House to release certain documents in response to another such request 
from the Special Counsel (May 28, 1992, p. 12790). The latter category 
included resolutions: (1) directing the Committee on House 
Administration to conduct a thorough investigation of the operation and 
management of the Office of the Postmaster in light of recent press 
allegations of wrongdoing (Feb. 5, 1992,


[[Page 421]]

30, 1997, p. 16958). The task force recommendations ultimately were 
reported from the Committee on Rules and were adopted with certain 
amendments (H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19340).

  In the 105th Congress a 12-member bipartisan task force appointed by 
the Majority and Minority Leaders conducted a comprehensive review of 
the House ethics process. During the deliberations of the task force, 
the House imposed a moratorium on raising certain questions of privilege 
under this rule with respect to official conduct and on the filing or 
processing of ethics complaints. The moratorium was imposed in the 
expectation that the recommendations of the task force would include 
rules changes relating to establishment and enforcement of standards of 
official conduct for Members, officers, and employees of the House (Feb. 
12, 1997, p. 2058). The moratorium was extended through September 10, 
1997 (July



Sec. 704. Questions relating to integrity of 
proceedings.

  The  privileges of the House include questions relating to the 
integrity of its proceedings, including the processes by which bills are 
considered (III, 2597-2601, 2614; IV, 3383, 3388, 3478), such as the 
constitutional question of the vote required to pass a joint resolution 
extending the State ratification period of a proposed constitutional 
amendment (Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 15, 1978, p. 26203). Privileges of the 
House also include: (1) resignation of a Member from a select or 
standing committee (Speaker Albert, June 16, 1975, p. 19054; Speaker 
O'Neill, Mar. 8, 1977, pp. 6579-82); (2) newspaper charges affecting the 
honor and dignity of the House (VII, 911); (3) the conduct of 
representatives of the press (II, 1630, 1631; III, 2627; VI, 553).


  Admission to the floor of the House constitutes a question of 
privilege (III, 2624-2626), including a resolution alleging indecorous 
behavior of a former Member and instructing the Sergeant-at-Arms to ban 
the former Member from the floor, and rooms leading thereto, until the 
resolution of a contested election to which he was party (H. Res. 233, 
Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19340).

  The accuracy and propriety of reports in the Congressional Record also 
constitute a question of privileges of the House (V, 7005-7023; VIII, 
3163, 3461, 3463, 3464, 3491, 3499; Apr. 20, 1936, p. 5704; May 11, 
1936, p. 7019; May 7, 1979, p. 10099), including a resolution: (1) 
asserting that a Member's remarks spoken in debate were omitted from the 
printed Record, directing that the Record be corrected and requiring the 
Clerk to report on the circumstances and possible corrective action 
(July 29, 1983, p. 21685); (2) directing the Committee on Rules to 
investigate and report to the House within a time certain on alleged 
alterations of the Record (Jan. 24, 1984, p. 250); (3) addressing 
whether the Record should constitute a verbatim transcript (May 8, 1985, 
p. 11072; Feb. 7, 1990, p. 1515); (4) alleging impropriety by a 
presiding officer and improper alteration of the Record, and directing 
that a select committee investigate and that the Record be corrected 
(Aug. 4, 2007, p. 23194). Although a motion to correct the Congressional 
Record based on improper alterations or insertions may constitute a 
question of privilege, mere typographical errors or ordinary revisions 
of a Member's remarks do not form the basis for privileged motions to 
correct the Record (Apr. 25, 1985, p. 9419; see Sec. 690, supra). A 
resolution directing the placement of an asterisk in the Congressional 
Record to note alleged inaccuracies in a State of the Union address (but 
not alleging improper transcription of that address) was held not to 
constitute a question of privilege (Oct. 20, 2003, pp. 25255, 25256).


[[Page 422]]

Privileges of the House involving records also include resolutions: (1) 
furnishing certain requested information to an Independent Counsel 
investigating covert arms transactions with Iran (June 4, 1992, p. 
13664); (2) responding to a request of a law enforcement official 
regarding the timing of the public release of official papers of the 
House (July 22, 1993, p. 16624); (3) directing a committee to 
investigate press publication of a report that the House had ordered not 
to be released (Speaker Albert, Feb. 19, 1976, p. 3914); (4) directing 
the public release of transcripts and other relevant documents relating 
to an investigation by the Committee on House Administration's task 
force to investigate the operation and management of the Office of the 
Postmaster unless two designees of the bipartisan leadership agreed to 
the contrary (June 9, 1994, p. 12437); (5) alleging that a Member 
willfully abused his power as chair of a committee by unilaterally 
releasing records of the committee in contravention of its rules 
(adopted ``protocol''), and expressing disapproval of such conduct (May 
14, 1998, p. 9279). However, a resolution directing a standing committee 
to release executive-session material referred to it as such by special 
rule of the House was held to propose a change in the rules and, 
therefore, not to constitute a question of the privileges of the House 
under rule IX (Sept. 23, 1998, p. 21562).
  The protection of House records constitutes a question of the 
privileges of the House, especially when records are demanded by the 
courts (III, 2604, 2659-2664; VI, 587; Sept. 18, 1992, p. 25750; see 
also Sec. 291a, supra).


[[Page 423]]

inaccuracies (May 22, 2008, p. 10522). The privileges of the House also 
include: (1) the integrity of its Journal (II, 1363; III, 2620) and 
messages (III, 2613); (2) unreasonable delay in transmitting an enrolled 
bill to the President (Oct. 8, 1991, p. 25761); (3) a concurrent 
resolution directing the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the 
Senate to produce official duplicates of certain legislative papers 
(Oct. 5, 1992, p. 32064). For a discussion of the privileged status of a 
request of one House for the return of a measure messaged to the other, 
see Sec. 565, supra.
  A question regarding the accuracy of House documents constitutes a 
question of privileges of the House (V, 7329), including resolutions: 
(1) asserting that a printed transcript of joint subcommittee hearings 
contained unauthorized alterations of the statements of subcommittee 
members in the prior Congress and that unauthorized alterations may have 
occurred in other committee hearing transcripts, and proposing the 
creation of a select committee to investigate and report by a date 
certain (June 29, 1983, p. 18279); (2) alleging the unauthorized 
creation and falsification of documents distributed to the general 
public at a committee hearing and resolving that the Speaker take 
appropriate measures to ensure the integrity of the legislative process 
and report his actions and recommendations to the House (Oct. 25, 1995, 
p. 29373); (3) alleging that a committee report contained descriptions 
of recorded votes (as required by clause 3(b) of rule XIII) that 
deliberately mischaracterized certain amendments and directing the chair 
of the committee to file a supplemental report to change those 
descriptions (May 3, 2005, pp. 8417, 8418); (4) alleging that known 
errors in the engrossment of a bill were ignored, that matter had been 
inserted into a conference report after conferees had signed it, that 
material information concerning legislation had been withheld for the 
purpose of achieving passage of that measure in a prior Congress, and 
resolving that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now 
Ethics) investigate inaccuracies in the enrollment of a bill (Feb. 16, 
2006, p. 1948); (5) alleging that known errors in the enrollment of a 
bill were ignored by the majority leadership after the President had 
transmitted to the House a return veto of the measure, admonishing the 
majority leadership for their roles therein, and directing the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to investigate the abuse 
of power surrounding the

  A resolution alleging that the Chair had improperly ordered the 
interruption of audio broadcast coverage of certain House proceedings 
constitutes a question of privileges of the House (Mar. 17, 1988, p. 
4180), as does a resolution providing for an experiment in the 
telecasting and broadcasting of House proceedings (Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 
15, 1977, p. 7607). Similarly, a resolution authorizing and directing 
the Speaker to provide for the audio and visual broadcast coverage of 
the Chamber while Members are voting has been held to present a question 
of the privileges of the House, because rule V (formerly clause 9 of 
rule I), which requires complete and unedited audio and visual coverage 
of House proceedings and coverage of record votes, had not been 
implemented (Apr. 30, 1985, p. 9821).

  Integrity in the conduct of a vote may involve a question of the 
privileges of the House, including resolutions: (1) alleging intentional 
abuse of House practices and customs in holding a vote open for 
approximately three hours for the sole purpose of circumventing the 
initial will of the House and directing the Speaker to take such steps 
as necessary to prevent further abuse (Dec. 8, 2003, p. 32099), or 
alleging such abuse, both in a prior Congress and in the current one, 
and alleging illegal behavior on the House floor during one such vote 
(bribery of a public official) (Dec. 8, 2005, pp. 27811, 27812); (2) 
directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to 
review irregularities in the conduct of a vote in the House (Aug. 3, 
2007, p. 22746); (3) alleging irregularities in the conduct of a vote, 
directing House officers to preserve all records relating thereto, and 
establishing a select committee of investigation thereof (Aug. 3, 2007, 
p. 22768); (4) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
(now Ethics) and a previously-established select committee to 
investigate whether a vote was held open beyond a reasonable period of 
time for the purpose of circumventing the will of the House, and 
vacating such vote (Mar. 12, 2008, p. 3855).

  A resolution alleging partiality in the manner of presiding by a 
Speaker pro tempore and stating that such actions bring dishonor and 
discredit on the House (Aug. 3, 2007, p. 22783) or alleging impropriety 
by a presiding officer, as well as alleging improper alteration of the 
Congressional Record and directing an investigation and correction 
thereof (Aug. 4, 2007, p. 23194), presents a question of the privileges 
of the House.


[[Page 424]]

remove minority party members from a committee room where they were 
meeting during the reading of an amendment, alleging that the chair 
deliberately and improperly refused to recognize a legitimate and timely 
objection by a member of the committee to dispense with the reading of 
that amendment, resolving that the House disapproves of the manner in 
which the chair conducted the markup, and finding that the bill 
considered at that markup was not validly ordered reported (July 18, 
2003, p. 18698) and resolving that the House disapproves of the manner 
in which the chair summoned the Capitol Police as well as the manner in 
which he conducted the markup, finding that the bill considered at that 
markup was not validly ordered reported, and calling for a police report 
to be placed in the Record (July 23, 2003 p. 19171); (2) alleging, among 
other things, the improper and unilateral firing of nonpartisan staff of 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) and 
directing the Speaker to appoint a bipartisan task force to address the 
efficacy of that committee so as to restore public confidence in the 
ethics process (Mar. 15, 2005, pp. 4657, 4658; Apr. 14, 2005, pp. 6399, 
6400) and directing the committee to appoint nonpartisan professional 
staff (June 9, 2005, pp. 12025, 12026); (3) alleging that the chair of a 
committee intentionally violated House rules and abused his power as 
chair during a minority day of hearings under clause 2(j) of rule XI and 
directing the chair to schedule a further day of hearings (June 16, 
2005, p. 12994); (4) alleging that the majority members of a committee 
wrongfully withheld a committee record from minority committee members 
(Jan. 24, 2007, p. 2139); (5) alleging that staff of the House 
Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards willfully applied 
different standards to submitted material on the basis of party and 
disapproving of the failure of the majority Members of that commission 
to ensure that staff executed their duties in a professional, fair, and 
impartial manner (July 29, 2009, pp. 19687, 19688); (6) disapproving the 
actions of a committee chair for alleged impropriety in interfering with 
a criminal investigation (June 29, 2012, p. _); (7) alleging that the 
chair of a committee violated House rules during a hearing and condeming 
his actions as offensive and disrespectful (Mar. 6, 2014, p. _) and 
requiring him to apologize in the well of the House (Mar. 13, 2014, p. 
_). However, charges of committee inaction (III, 2610), secret committee 
conferences (VI, 578), refusal to make a staff study available to 
certain Members and to the public (Feb. 14, 1939, p. 1370), refusal to 
give hearings or allow petitions to be read (III, 2607), refusal to 
permit committee member to take photostatic copies of committee files 
(Aug. 14, 1957, p. 14739), and calling for a determination whether a 
committee violated House rules by voting to take allegedly defamatory 
testimony in open session (June 30, 1958, p. 12690), were all held not 
to give rise to a question of the privileges of the House.
  Alleged improprieties in committee procedures may give rise to 
questions of the privileges of the House, including resolutions: (1) 
alleging that the chair of a committee directed his staff to request the 
Capitol Police to



[[Page 425]]


  A resolution alleging that a Member had interrupted an address by the 
President to a joint session of Congress by interjecting remarks, and 
disapproving of that behavior, presents a question of the privileges of 
the House (Sept. 15, 2009, p. 21662).




Sec. 705. Questions relating to comfort and 
convenience.

  The  privileges of the House include questions relating to the 
comfort and convenience of Members and employees (III, 2629-2636), such 
as resolutions concerning the proper attire for Members in the Chamber 
when the temperature is uncomfortably warm (July 17, 1979, p. 19008); as 
well as questions relating to safety, such as resolutions requiring an 
investigation into the safety of Members in view of alleged structural 
deficiencies in the West Front of the Capitol (July 25, 1980, pp. 19762-
64) or an insecure ceiling in the Hall (III, 2685); directing the 
appointment of a select committee to inquire into alleged fire safety 
deficiencies in the environs of the House (May 10, 1988, p. 10286); and 
directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to ensure that House personnel are 
alerted to the dangers of electronic security breaches on computer and 
information systems (June 11, 2008, p. 12233).



[[Page 426]]

to reflect overall party ratios in the House was held to constitute a 
change in the Rules of the House and not to constitute a proper question 
of the privileges of the House (the standing rules already providing 
mechanisms for selecting committee members and staff) (Jan. 23, 1984, p. 
78). On the other hand, although the Rules of the House establish a 
procedure for fixing the ratio of majority to minority members on full 
committees and also provide that subcommittees are subject to the 
direction and control of the full committee (clause 1 of rule XI), a 
question of the privileges of the House is raised where it is alleged 
that subcommittee ratios should reflect full committee ratios 
established by the House and failure to do so denies representational 
rights at the subcommittee level (Oct. 4, 1984, p. 30042). A resolution 
alleging that a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of 
each legislative day would enhance the dignity and integrity of the 
proceedings of the House and directing that the Speaker implement such a 
recitation as the practice of the House was held to propose a change in 
the rules and therefore not to give rise to a question of the privileges 
of the House (Sept. 9, 1988, p. 23298). A resolution directing that the 
reprogramming process established in law for legislative branch 
appropriations be subjected to third-party review for conformity with 
external standards of accounting but alleging no deviation from duly 
constituted procedure was held not to give rise to a question of the 
privileges of the House (May 20, 1992, p. 12005 (sustained by tabling of 
appeal)). A resolution to permit the Delegate of the District of 
Columbia to vote on articles of impeachment of the President in 
contravention of statutory law and the Rules of the House was held to be 
tantamount to a change in the rules and therefore not to constitute a 
question of the privileges of the House (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27825). A 
resolution directing a standing committee to release executive-session 
material referred to it as such by special rule of the House was held to 
propose a change in the rules and, therefore, not to constitute a 
question of the privileges of the House (Sept. 23, 1998, p. 21562). A 
resolution expressing Congressional sentiment that the President should 
take specified action to achieve a desired public policy, even though 
involving executive action under a treaty (under which the Senate had 
exercised its prerogative to ratify), does not present a question of the 
privileges of the House, but rather is a legislative matter to be 
considered under ordinary rules relating to priority of business (June 
6, 2002, p. 9492 (sustained by tabling of appeal)).


Sec. 706. May not effect change in rules.

  A motion  to amend 
the Rules of the House does not present a question of privilege (Speaker 
Cannon, sustained by the House, thereby overruling the House's decision 
of March 19, 1910 (VIII, 3376), which held such motion privileged (VIII, 
3377)), and a question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked 
to effect a change in the rules or standing orders of the House or their 
interpretation (Speaker O'Neill, Dec. 6, 1977, pp. 38470-73; Sept. 9, 
1988, p. 23298; July 30, 1992, p. 20339; Jan. 31, 1996, p. 1887), 
including directions to the Speaker infringing upon the discretionary 
power of recognition under clause 2 of rule XVII (formerly clause 2 of 
rule XIV) (July 25, 1980, pp. 19762-64), for example, by requiring that 
the Speaker give priority in recognition to any Member seeking to call 
up a matter highly privileged pursuant to a statutory provision, over a 
member from the Committee on Rules seeking to call up a privileged 
report from that committee (Speaker Wright, Mar. 11, 1987, p. 5403), or 
by requiring that the Speaker state the question on overriding a veto 
before recognizing for a motion to refer (thereby overruling prior 
decisions of the Chair to change the order of precedence of motions) 
(Speaker Wright, Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20281). Similarly, a resolution 
alleging that, in light of an internationally objectionable French 
program of nuclear test detonations, for the House to receive the 
President of France in a joint meeting would be injurious to its dignity 
and to the integrity of its proceedings, and resolving that the Speaker 
withdraw the pending invitation and refrain from similar invitations, 
was held not to present a question of the privileges of the House 
because it proposed a collateral change in an order of the House 
previously adopted (that the House recess for the purpose of receiving 
the President of France) and a new rule for future cases (Jan. 31, 1996, 
p. 1887). A resolution collaterally challenging the validity or fairness 
of an adopted rule of the House by delaying its implementation was held 
not to give rise to a question of the privileges of the House (Feb. 3, 
1993, p. 1974 (sustained by tabling of appeal)). A resolution directing 
that the party ratios of all standing committees, subcommittees, and 
staffs thereof be changed within a time certain



[[Page 427]]

by tabling of appeal), 18938 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Oct. 3, 
2002, pp. 19001 (sustained by tabling of appeal), 19002 (sustained by 
tabling of appeal)). For example, the following resolutions have been 
held not to give rise to a question of the privileges of the House: (1) 
a resolution directing a committee to meet and conduct certain business 
(June 27, 1974, p. 21596; July 31, 1975, p. 26250; June 25, 2009, p. 
16440 (sustained by tabling of appeal); July 9, 2009, p. 17242 
(sustained by tabling of appeal); July 23, 2009, p. 18853 (sustained by 
tabling of appeal)); (2) a resolution amending a special order of 
business resolution (July 17, 2009, p. 18192 (sustained by tabling of 
appeal); July 24, 2009, p. 19156 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); (3) 
a resolution alleging that the inability of the House to enact certain 
legislation constituted an impairment of the dignity of the House, the 
integrity of its proceedings, and its place in public esteem, and 
resolving that the House be considered to have passed such legislation 
(Jan. 3, 1996, p. 40; Jan. 24, 1996, p. 1248), exhorting it to do so 
(Mar. 11, 2008, p. 3707 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Dec. 13, 2011, 
p. _), or expressing its willingness to do so (Oct. 8, 2013, p. _); (4) 
a resolution precluding an adjournment of the House until a specified 
legislative measure is considered (Feb. 1, 1996, p. 2247; Mar. 13, 2008, 
pp. 4075, 4076 (sustained by tabling of appeal)) or precluding an 
assembly during a specified post-election period (Aug. 10, 2010, pp. 
15438, 15439 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Sept. 23, 2010, pp. 
16374-76 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); (5) a resolution prohibiting 
the House from considering a measure alleged to violate a House rule and 
to be unconstitutional (May 21, 2013, p. _). See also Sec. 702, supra, 
for a discussion of legislative propositions purporting to present 
questions of the privileges of the House.

  A question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked to 
prescribe a special order of business for the House, because otherwise 
any Member would be able to attach privilege to a legislative measure 
merely by alleging impact on the dignity of the House based upon House 
action or inaction (June 27, 1974, p. 21596; Feb. 7, 1995, p. 3905; Dec. 
22, 1995, p. 38501; Jan. 3, 1996, p. 40; Jan. 24, 1996, p. 1248; Feb. 1, 
1996, p. 2245; Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25420; Nov. 4, 1999, pp. 28528-33; June 
6, 2002, p. 9492 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Oct. 2, 2002, pp. 
18932 (sustained by tabling of appeal), 18934 (sustained by tabling of 
appeal), 18936 (sustained


[[Page 428]]

relating to the count of the electoral vote (III, 2573-2578), 
resolutions relating to adjournment and recess of Congress (V, 6698, 
6701-6706; Nov. 13, 1997, p. 26538), and a resolution declaring the 
Office of the Speaker vacant (VI, 35); but under later decisions certain 
of these matters that have no other basis in the Constitution or in the 
rules for privileged status, such as bills relating to census and 
apportionment, have been held not to present questions of privilege, and 
the effect of such decisions is to require all questions of privilege to 
come within the specific provisions of this rule (VI, 48; VII, 889; Apr. 
8, 1926, p. 7147) (see Sec. 702, supra).


Sec. 707. As distinct from privileged questions.

  The  clause 
of the rule giving questions of privilege precedence over all other 
questions except a motion to adjourn is a recognition of a well-
established principle in the House, for it is an axiom of the 
parliamentary law that such a question ``supersedes the consideration of 
the original question, and must be first disposed of'' (III, 2522, 2523; 
VI, 595). As the business of the House began to increase it was found 
necessary to give certain important matters a precedence by rule, and 
such matters are called ``privileged questions.'' But as they relate 
merely to the order of business under the rules, they are to be 
distinguished from ``questions of privilege'' that relate to the safety 
or efficiency of the House itself as an organ for action (III, 2718). It 
is evident, therefore, that a question of privilege takes precedence 
over a matter merely privileged under the rules (III, 2526-2530; V, 
6454; VIII, 3465). Certain matters of business, arising under provisions 
of the Constitution, have been held to have a privilege that superseded 
the rules establishing the order of business, as bills providing for 
census or apportionment (I, 305-308), bills returned with the objections 
of the President (IV, 3530-3536), propositions of impeachment (see 
Sec. 604, supra), and questions incidental thereto (III, 2401, 2418; V, 
7261; July 22, 1986, p. 17306; Dec. 2, 1987, p. 33720; Jan. 3, 1989, p. 
84; Feb. 7, 1989, p. 1726), matters



  A resolution that presents a proper question of the privileges of the 
House (alteration of subcommittee hearing transcripts) may propose the 
creation of a select investigatory committee with subpoena authority to 
report back to the House by a date certain (June 29, 1983, p. 18104), 
but may not appropriate funds for the investigating committee from the 
contingent fund (now referred to as ``applicable accounts of the House 
described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X'') (VI, 395).


[[Page 429]]

House does not support a question of personal privilege (Jan. 18, 2007, 
p. 1625).


Sec. 708. Questions of personal privilege.

  The  privilege of 
the Member rests primarily on the Constitution, which grants conditional 
immunity from arrest (Sec. 90, supra) and an unconditional freedom of 
debate in the House (III, 2670, Sec. 92, supra). An assault on a Member 
within the Capitol when the House was not in session, from a cause not 
connected with the Member's representative capacity, was also held to 
involve a question of privilege (II, 1624). But there has been doubt as 
to the right of the House to interfere for the protection of Members in 
matters not connected with their official duties (II, 1277; III, 2678, 
footnote). Charges against the conduct of a Member are held to involve 
privilege when they relate to the Member's representative capacity (III, 
1828-1830, 2716; VI, 604, 612; VIII, 2479), but not when they relate to 
conduct at a time before such person became a Member (II, 1287; III, 
2691, 2723, 2725). Although questions of personal privilege normally 
involve matters touching on a Member's reputation, a Member may be 
recognized for a question of personal privilege based on a violation of 
his rights as a Member, such as unauthorized printed alterations in his 
statements made during a subcommittee hearing in a prior Congress 
(because the second phrase of this clause speaks to the ``rights, 
reputation, and conduct of Members, individually'') (June 28, 1983, p. 
17674). A printed characterization by an officer of the House of a 
Member's proposed amendments as ``dilatory and frivolous'' may give rise 
to a question of personal privilege (Aug. 1, 1985, p. 22542) as may the 
fraudulent use of a Member's official stationery as a ``Dear Colleague'' 
letter (Sept. 17, 1986, p. 23605). Although a Member may be recognized 
on a question of personal privilege to complain about an abuse of House 
rules as applied to debate in which such Member was properly 
participating, such Member may not raise a question of personal 
privilege merely to complain that microphones had been turned off during 
disorderly conduct following expiration of recognition for debate (Mar. 
16, 1988, p. 4085). A Member's mere assertion of general corruption in 
the


  Speaker Wright rose to a question of personal privilege to respond to 
a ``statement of alleged violations'' pending in the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics); and, pending the committee's 
disposition of his motion to dismiss, announced his intention to resign 
as Speaker and as a Member (May 31, 1989, p. 10440). Speaker Gingrich 
rose to a question of personal privilege to discuss his own official 
conduct previously resolved by the House, which question was based upon 
press accounts (Apr. 17, 1997, p. 5834). Speaker Hastert rose to a 
question of personal privilege to discuss the process for selecting a 
Chaplain, which question was based on press accounts (Mar. 23, 2000, p. 
3478).

  A Member rose to a question of personal privilege to discuss: (1) his 
own official conduct relative to his account with the ``bank'' operated 
by the Sergeant-at-Arms, which question was based on press accounts 
(Mar. 19, 1992, p. 6074); (2) reflections on his character in pointed 
descriptions of recorded votes taken in committee on a Member's 
amendments, included in a committee report under clause 3(b) of rule 
XIII, which question was based on the report and on certain media 
coverage thereof (May 5, 2005, p. 8691; May 10, 2005, p. 9094); (3) 
allegations that he had used procedural tactics to disrupt a memorial 
service in the Rotunda for a late Member (Feb. 14, 2008, p. 2195); (4) a 
``Dear Colleague'' alleging willful violation of the rules of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) by its ranking 
minority member (Mar. 12, 2008, p. 3858); (5) allegations that he 
accepted an appointment from the administration in exchange for certain 
votes (Mar. 19, 2010, p. 3945); (6) a pending investigation by the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) of her, 
including disciplinary action taken by the committee against 
professional staff assigned to the case (Dec. 9, 2010, pp. 19394-5).


[[Page 430]]

  A committee chair rose to a question of personal privilege: (1) based 
on press accounts concerning allegations by other Members that he had 
been ``buying votes'' (Mar. 26, 1998, p. 4851); (2) based on press 
accounts containing statements impugning his character and motive by 
alleging intentional violation of rules governing the conduct of an 
investigation (May 12, 1998, p. 8838); (3) to discuss his own official 
conduct, which question was based on a letter of reproval reported by 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) (Oct. 5, 
2000, p. 21048); (4) based on press accounts impugning his character to 
discuss his decision to direct his staff to request the Capitol Police 
to remove minority party members from a committee room where they were 
meeting during the reading of an amendment at a committee markup (July 
23, 2003, p. 19171); (5) based on press accounts regarding the receipt 
of illegal gifts and campaign contributions (July 31, 2008, p. 17462) 
and violations of federal tax law (Sept. 10, 2008, p. 18419) and a 
statement of alleged violations by the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct (now Ethics) regarding those accusations (Aug. 10, 
2010, p. 15440).


  A distinction has been drawn between charges made by one Member 
against another in a newspaper or press release (July 28, 1970, p. 
26002) or in a ``Dear Colleague'' letter (Aug. 4, 1989, p. 19139; May 
14, 1996, p. 11081; Mar. 12, 2008, p. 3858), and the same when made on 
the floor (III, 1827, 2691, 2717). Charges made in newspapers against 
Members in their representative capacities involve privilege (III, 1832, 
2694, 2696-2699, 2703, 2704; VI, 576, 621; VIII, 2479), even though the 
names of individual Members are not given (III, 1831, 2705, 2709; VI, 
616, 617). But vague charges in newspaper articles (III, 2711; VI, 570), 
criticisms (III, 2712-2714; VIII, 2465), or even misrepresentations of 
the Member's speeches or acts or responses in an interview (III, 2707, 
2708; Aug. 3, 1990, p. 22135), have not been entertained. A question of 
personal privilege may not ordinarily be based merely on words spoken in 
debate (July 23, 1987, p. 20861; Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4085; Nov. 16, 1989, 
p. 29569; Sept. 25, 1996, p. 24807; Sept. 21, 2001, p. 17613; Mar. 31, 
2004, p. 5763; July 21, 2009, p. 18508) or conveyed by an exhibit in 
debate (June 28, 2000, p. 12723) and the Chair does not interpret 
remarks in debate challenged on the basis of personal privilege (July 
25, 2012, p. _). However, a Member may raise a question of personal 
privilege based upon press accounts of another Member's remarks, in 
debate or off the floor, that impugn the character or motives of that 
Member (May 15, 1984, pp. 12207, 12211; May 31, 1984, p. 14620; Mar. 27, 
2012, p. _), newspaper accounts of televised press coverage of a 
committee hearing at which that Member was criticized derogatorily (Mar. 
3, 1988, p. 3196), or press accounts arraigning personally offensive 
remarks a Member had made in debate regarding the President (Oct. 23, 
2007, p. 27967).



Sec. 709. Precedence of questions of privileges of the 
House.

  The  body of precedent relating to the precedence of questions of 
privilege spans both the adoption of this rule in 1880 and its amendment 
to require notice in certain cases in 1993.



[[Page 431]]

16574); (4) motions to resolve into the Committee of the Whole (VI, 554; 
VIII, 3461); (5) unfinished business, privileged under clauses 1 and 3 
of rule XIV (formerly rule XXIV) (Speaker Albert, June 4, 1975, p. 
16860). Because a resolution raising a question of the privileges of the 
House takes precedence over a motion to suspend the rules, it may be 
offered and voted on between motions to suspend the rules on which the 
Speaker has postponed record votes (May 17, 1983, p. 12486). In general, 
one question of privilege may not take precedence over another (III, 
2534, 2552, 2581), and the Chair's power of recognition determines which 
of two matters of equal privilege is considered first (July 24, 1990, p. 
18916). Although under rule IX a question of the privileges of the House 
takes precedence over all other questions except the motion to adjourn, 
the Speaker may, pursuant to the power of recognition under clause 2 of 
rule XVII (formerly clause 2 of rule XIV), entertain unanimous-consent 
requests for ``one-minute speeches'' pending recognition for a question 
of privilege, because such unanimous-consent requests, if granted, 
temporarily waive the standing Rules of the House relating to the order 
of business (Speaker O'Neill, July 10, 1985, p. 18394; Feb. 6, 1989, pp. 
1676-82).
  A question of privilege may interrupt: (1) the reading of the Journal 
(II, 1630; VI, 637); (2) the consideration of a bill (or series of 
measures) that had been made in order by a special rule (III, 2524, 
2525); (3) in an exceptional decision, where the rule thereon ordered 
the previous question to final passage without intervening motion, after 
consideration of the measure in the Committee of the Whole but before 
passage in the House (VI, 560); (4) under antiquated drafting 
conventions for special orders of business that ordered the previous 
question after debate, the consideration of certain matters on which the 
previous question has been ordered (III, 2532; VI, 561; VIII, 2688). A 
question of privilege takes precedence over (1) business in order on 
Calendar Wednesday (VI, 394; VII, 908-910), a ``suspension day'' (III, 
2553; VI, 553; June 5, 2007, p. 14600), or over certain motions given 
precedence under a special rule (VI, 565); (2) reports from the 
Committee on Rules before consideration has begun (VIII, 3491; Mar. 11, 
1987, p. 5403); (3) call of the Consent Calendar on Monday (VI, 553), 
before that Calendar was repealed (H. Res. 168, June 20, 1995, p.

  A Member's announcement of intent to offer a resolution as a question 
of privilege may take precedence over a special order reported from the 
Committee on Rules; but, if a special order is pending, such 
announcements are counted against debate on the resolution absent 
unanimous consent to the contrary (Oct. 28, 1997, pp. 23525, 23527).


  While a question of privilege is pending, a message of the President 
is received (V, 6640-6642), but is read only by unanimous consent (V, 
6639). A motion to reconsider may also be entered but may not be 
considered (V, 5673-5676). It has been held that only one question of 
privilege may be pending at a time (III, 2533), but having presented one 
question of privilege, a Member, before discussing it, may submit a 
second question of privilege related to the first and discuss both on 
one recognition (VI, 562). Although a resolution raising a question of 
the privileges of the House has precedence over all other questions, it 
is nevertheless subject to disposition by the ordinary motions permitted 
under clause 4 of rule XVI, and by the motion to commit under clause 2 
of rule XIX (formerly clause 1 of rule XVII) (Speaker Albert, Feb. 19, 
1976, p. 3914; Apr. 28, 1983, p. 10423; Mar. 22, 1990, p. 4996).


[[Page 432]]

privilege even after the previous question has been ordered on a pending 
bill (VI, 561; VIII, 2688). Under modern practice, a question of 
personal privilege may not be raised in the Committee of the Whole 
(Sept. 4, 1969, p. 24372; Dec. 13, 1973, p. 41270), the proper remedy 
being a demand that words be taken down pursuant to clause 4 of rule 
XVI; yet a breach of privilege occurring in the Committee of the Whole 
relates to the dignity of the House and is so treated (II, 1657). A 
question of personal privilege may not be raised while a question of the 
privileges of the House is pending (Apr. 30, 1985, p. 9808; May 1, 1985, 
p. 10003). The Chair may require a Member to submit for examination the 
material upon which the Member would rely before conferring recognition 
for a question of personal privilege (Jan. 18, 2007, p. 1625).



Sec. 711. Precedence of questions of personal 
privilege.

  When  a Member proposes merely to address the House on a question 
of personal privilege, and does not offer a resolution affecting the 
dignity or integrity of the House for action, the practice as to 
precedence is somewhat different. Thus, a Member rising to a question of 
personal privilege may not interrupt a call of the yeas and nays (V, 
6051, 6052, 6058, 6059; VI, 554, 564), or take from the floor another 
Member who has been recognized for debate (V, 5002; VIII, 2459, 2528; 
Sept. 29, 1983, p. 26508; July 23, 1987, p. 20861), but may interrupt 
the ordinary legislative business (III, 2531). A Member may address the 
House on a question of personal



<>   Whenever 
it is asserted on the floor that the privileges of the House are 
invaded, the Speaker entertains the question (II, 1501), and may then 
refuse recognition if the resolution is not admissible as a question of 
privilege under the rule. A proper question of privilege may be renewed 
(Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33846). Although the early custom was for the Speaker 
to submit to the House the question whether a resolution involved the 
privileges of the House (III, 2718), the modern practice is for the 
Speaker to rule directly on the question (VI, 604; Speaker Wright, Mar. 
11, 1987, p. 5404; Feb. 3, 1995, p. 3571; Feb. 7, 1995, p. 3905), 
subject to appeal where appropriate (Speaker Albert, June 27, 1974, p. 
21596). In raising a question of personal privilege, a Member in the 
first instance must apprise the Chair of the grounds on which 
recognition may be conferred (Deschler, ch. 11, Sec. 21.1; Jan. 18, 
2007, p. 1625; Sept. 10, 2008, p. 18422).


Sec. 712. Questions of privilege in relation to 
quorum.

    During a call of the House in the absence of a quorum, only 
such questions of privilege as relate immediately to those proceedings 
may be presented (III, 2545). See also Sec. 1024, infra.


  Under the form of the rule adopted in the 103d Congress, the Speaker 
has discretion to recognize a Member other than the Majority or Minority 
Leader to proceed immediately on a resolution offered as a question of 
the privileges of the House (Speaker Foley, Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1974); and 
is not required to announce the time designated to consider a resolution 
at the time the resolution is noticed (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2209). The 
Speaker does not rule on the privileged status of a resolution at the 
time that resolution is noticed, but only when called up (Feb. 11, 1994, 
p. 2209; Sept. 13, 1994, p. 24389; Feb. 3, 1995, p. 3571).


[[Page 433]]

calendar days before consideration (Speaker Albert, July 13, 1971, pp. 
24720-23). But a Member may not, as a matter of right, require the 
reading of a book or paper by suggesting that it contains matter 
infringing on the privileges of the House (V, 5258). In presenting a 
question of personal privilege the Member is not required in the first 
instance to offer a motion or resolution, but must take this preliminary 
step in raising a question of the privileges of the House (III, 2546, 
2547; VI, 565-569, 580; VII, 3464). Such a resolution is read in full by 
the Clerk (Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25420), and a parliamentary inquiry 
regarding its content, in the discretion of the Chair, should await the 
conclusion of the reading (Dec. 8, 2005, p. 27812). A proposition of 
privilege may lose its precedence by association with a matter not of 
privilege (III, 2551; V, 5890; VI, 395). Debate on a question of 
privilege is under the hour rule (V, 4990; VIII, 2448), but the previous 
question may be moved (II, 1256; V, 5459, 5460; VIII, 2672); since the 
103d Congress, however, the rule has provided for divided control of the 
hour in the case of a resolution offered from the floor. Consideration 
of a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House may include 
recognition for an hour of debate on a motion to refer under clause 4 of 
rule XVI (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5557; Sept. 29, 2006, p. 21334); a separate 
hour of debate on the resolution, itself, under clause 2 of rule XVII 
(formerly clause 2 of rule XIV); and a motion to commit (not debatable 
after the ordering of the previous question) under clause 2 of rule XIX 
(formerly clause 1 of rule XVII) (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5557). Debate on a 
letter of resignation is controlled by the Member moving the acceptance 
of the resignation (Mar. 8, 1977, pp. 6579-82) if the resigning Member 
does not seek recognition (June 16, 1975, p. 19054; June 8, 2006, p. 
10498). Debate on a question of personal privilege must be confined to 
the statements or issues that gave rise to the question of privilege (V, 
5075-77; VI, 576, 608; VIII, 2448, 2481; May 31, 1984, p. 14623). A 
Member recognized only on the question of whether a resolution qualifies 
as a question of privilege is not recognized to debate such resolution 
(Nov. 3, 2005, pp. 24757, 24758; May 21, 2013, p. _). Remarks uttered 
while not under recognition for debate do not render untimely a motion 
before debate to lay on the table a resolution offered under this rule 
(Aug. 3, 2007, p. 22783). end segment .006  deg. 
segment .007 -- rule X  deg.


  Common fame has been held sufficient basis for raising a question 
(III, 2538, 2701); a telegraphic dispatch may also furnish a basis (III, 
2539). A report relating to the contemptuous conduct of a witness before 
a committee gives rise to a question of the privileges of the House and 
may, under this rule, be considered on the same day reported 
notwithstanding the requirement of clause 4(a) of rule XIII (formerly 
clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI) that reports from committees be available to 
Members for at least three